according to Genesis, Eve was created as a 'companion' for Adam because God the Creator 'knew' Adam would desire/need a companion and get a Family
started on this planet.
the Dna humans share with plants fish trees bears and lobsters might be restricted to this one planet only, has anyone ever compared to a 'lifeform'
from another planet or moon ?

It's hard (if not impossible) to not assume someone knows nothing on the TOE when they post such nonsense.

However it shows that there is something to be said on the comedic value of Creationists.

Flesh and blood transformers is as genuine a definition as "invisible sky fairies" and "a magic man in the clouds"...

But that's fair game right?
Amarite?

When you factor in that Evolution is an actual scientific theory and Creationism doesn't meet any criteria of the scientific method and that there is
so much evidence in favor of evolution that less than 5% of Earth Scientists who are members of the National Academy of Sciences disagree with it and
over 95% agree that evolution is a fact based on testable and repeatable data and then compare that with no testable or repeatable evidence in favor
of any tenet of creationism or factor in that no aspect of evolutionary theory includes anything remotely resembling "flesh and blood transformers"...
Sky fairies doesn't even need to come into at here. Creationism as a theory though? Completely fair game since it's barely eligible to be considered
to be a hypothesis.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
Flesh and blood transformers is as genuine a definition as "invisible sky fairies" and "a magic man in the clouds"...

But that's fair game right?
Amarite?

Yeah no

The TOE is a comprehensive explanation for the diversity of life on earth, and nowhere is it stated that organisms 'transform'.

We have no such explanation for any of the myriad of different gods and ghouls. All we have are incredibly vague writings that make claims of the
existence gods from incredibly superstitious and hysterical people in ancient times.

There's literally no difference between those claims any any random thought or idea you or I might pull from our rear ends while we're sat on the
toilet.

But you weren't to know this seeing as you've obviously never taken the time to learn about evolution.

originally posted by: blacktie
according to Genesis, Eve was created as a 'companion' for Adam because God the Creator 'knew' Adam would desire/need a companion and get a Family
started on this planet.
the Dna humans share with plants fish trees bears and lobsters might be restricted to this one planet only, has anyone ever compared to a 'lifeform'
from another planet or moon ?

So God created Adam and Eve and they had 3 sons. Could you please care to explain how the world was then populated? Who gave birth to
mankind?

But humans AREN'T the final product of evolution. There are animals that have evolved to their current state after humans have, plus evolution is
still ongoing, including for humans. In 100,000 years we likely won't look anything like we do now.

Confirmation bias. They started, from their very name, with answers in genesis, rather than questions in a laboratory. How shocking that their
"science" came to the same answer as the book of genesis!

The disagreement here is over how fast genes change. The Christians say two conflicting things- 1. That 100,000 years of provable human evolution
actually fits into the last 5,000 years...
2. That the past billion or so years of evolution wouldn't fit into the entire history of the cosmos.

The scientific argument is that most processes work at a uniform rate that can be observed and mathematically extrapolated, thus giving us a pretty
accurate picture of what has happened from trace evidence.

The truth is a lot closer to the scientific side, but we've begin to see signs that a lot of processes are more punctuated and orderly than we
believed and can move pretty rapidly under the right conditions. We have for example discovered that adverse conditions actually cause dna replication
errors- it's not a fully random process- dna actually tries harder to evolve when you fight it.

This means that 1. Evolution is a more plausible theory than detractors contend, and yes the mechanisms we observe would do the job in the time
allowed.

2. Science could be missing some very impressive flashes in the evolutionary pan (perhaps even unknown bottlenecks and divergences in our genetic
history) because their way of averaging things out doesn't account for EVERY tool that evolution has at it's disposal.

In so many words, I like your bible stories and I'd like to believe that some of it is valid observation that can be analyzed with science to fill in
some history, but you can't change working scientific theories to preserve your story better.

Any accredited scientist who is a member of this group (Answers in Genesis) is going to abide by it's particular statement of faith.

Here is the first part of the Statement of Faith of Answers in Genesis:

1. The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
2. The doctrines of Creator and Creation cannot ultimately be divorced from the gospel of Jesus Christ.

(B) BASICS
1. The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in
all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority in everything it teaches.
2. The final guide to the interpretation of Scripture is Scripture itself.
3. The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for
scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the earth, and the universe.
4. The various original life-forms (kinds), including mankind, were made by direct creative acts of God. The living descendants of any of the original
kinds (apart from man) may represent more than one species today, reflecting the genetic potential within the original kind. Only limited biological
changes (including mutational deterioration) have occurred naturally within each kind since Creation.
5. The great Flood of Genesis was an actual historic event, worldwide (global) in its extent and effect.
6. The special creation of Adam (the first man) and Eve (the first woman), and their subsequent fall into sin, is the basis for the necessity of
salvation for mankind.
7. Death (both physical and spiritual) and bloodshed entered into this world subsequent to and as a direct consequence of man's sin.

Any "scientists" touting their credentials who are doing creationism and ID are not following the scientific method, and therefore are not doing
science.
They are bound by faith, using their scientific credentials in a fraudulent manner!

'Answers in Genesis' is never going to give you unbiased science. Look at all the other things that Answers in Genesis swear are real, and you will
get an idea of how "scientific" they are. They are not. They are religious wingnuts.

Not sure if anyone here has read Bryan Sykes' "The Seven Daughters of Eve." The book traces all modern European human mitochondrial genetics back to a
common female in Africa. This doesn't mean that there were no other families, just that those who survived, thrived, and spread seem to have been
genetically related to the 'Mitochondrial Eve.' The name was given as an easy reference only, and not to prove anything Biblical.
Most of the book is quite dry and spends a lot of time covering numerous peer reviews, double/triple/quadruple checking of all data, revisiting old
data as new evidence emerges, and reviewing the history of man to the extent of scientific knowledge.
It does not simply say, "Here's something I read that was written hundreds of years ago, and that I now believe, and here's how I tried very hard to
prove it was true despite the likelihood of that being zero." This is what Answers in Genesis does on a daily basis.

Even if one cedes a common ancestor as an "Eve" figure, there is absolutely no evidence, or reality in anything claimed in the Bible (or variations
thereof), and certainly nothing claimed by the idiots at Answers in Genesis.

originally posted by: blacktie
according to Genesis, Eve was created as a 'companion' for Adam because God the Creator 'knew' Adam would desire/need a companion and get a Family
started on this planet.
the Dna humans share with plants fish trees bears and lobsters might be restricted to this one planet only, has anyone ever compared to a 'lifeform'
from another planet or moon ?

So God created Adam and Eve and they had 3 sons. Could you please care to explain how the world was then populated? Who gave birth to
mankind?

The main problem with the bible standarts it's that it doesn't account the genetic variation. People probably didn't know back then, but incest can
lead to abort or genetic deformation. So either adam and eve was packed with a mysterious cocktail of DNA, or i'm more inclined to believe there was
more than a single human around back then.

Anyway, the reason we share the same dna with most creatures on earth can be seen on the similarities with the living beings. At a certain point, a
single organism (belived to came from Sarcopterygii) survived and from them almost all living animals became tetrapods (two arms and two legs, or four
legs.) The same can be applied to most fish.

Jesus of Nazareth was a real person, too -- a hippy stoner, cult leader who was put to death by the Romans at the behest of the Jews (in order to
placate them) on the grounds of heresy (against Judaism) and blasphemy (against the Jewish brand of "God", Yahweh / Elohim) , and whose bloodied,
abused corpse, nailed to a medieval torture device through his hands and feet, today adorns trinkets worn around children's necks and finials atop
cult recruitment centres the Christian world over, as a tool of subliminal programming for the indoctrination of fear, subjugation and otherworldly
perdition...(!)

However, this does not mean said hippy stoner's hands had X-Men-like healing properties, that he could levitate or that
he was immortal.

>Even the Devil can cite scripture (Shakespeare) and even an idiot can misinterpret it (anon).

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.